Those who fail to learn from history...

by dmlichte on Nov 28, 2007 10:43 PM CST

... are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say in this case that they are DOMED to repeat it.

http://majorleaguedowntown.com/default.aspx

For those like me who love a new ballpark unveiling, the folks in Tampa unveiled their vision for a new ballpark near the water. Talk has been of this ballpark for a few weeks now, a 34,000 seat stadium with a roof composed of a sail-like material.

Well those of us who are suspicious of such things begin laughing... a roof covering a 34,000 stadium that is made of a sail-like material you say? Well, if you click on the link above you'll see renderings, but all you have to do is see the front page and those of us who are any older than a few years old may be struck by what we first believe to be deja vu. It's not deja vu, it's freaking Stade Olympique, the ballpark built for the Montreal Expos that was a colossal disaster.

Let us recall an ugly, cavernous ballpark that was a total pit. Let us recall a massive concrete beam (55 tons according to my google search) that came crashing to the field and resulted in a few extra games at Wrigley in 1991. Let us recall a ridiculously poorly designed roof that ultimately was no longer able to be removed.

So to the Devil Rays, the local and state governments in Florida, go ahead and build your stadium, but realize that this is a bad idea, unless you want to spend $400M+ just to have the rest of the country laugh at you. Go back to the drawing board. This has been done once and it was a bad idea.

DmL

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation, Bleed Cubbie Blue, or Al Yellon, editor-in-chief. FanPost opinions are, however, valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Uh.....

Technology has gotten much better and it reminds me of Miller Park's roof. Debating this much farther than that would be absurd.

by IllinoisCubs on Nov 28, 2007 11:33 PM CST 0 recs

huh?

Why is it absurd? If you don't want to talk about a new ballpark and its design, well, then don't. I don't think its at all ridiculous to suggest that making a freaking roof out of sail-like material is just incredibly stupid and the fact that these people don't look at the design of their new stadium and see Olympic Stadium shocks me. Miller Park's roof is metal, not some fabric that a nice wind storm during a game is going to absolutely eviscerate.

Its not like this is some low cost stadium with a roof designed to save dollars. Its a stadium costing over $400M. Put a real roof on it, folks!

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 29, 2007 12:15 AM CST up 0 recs

Your Statements

are rash and uninformed. I kinda like the look of the stadium, it's simple yet elegant with enough zip to keep it interesting. The "sail" roof has been done numerous times throughout the world, it's not cheap nor is it somekind of cop out. I do not know how they would handle hurricane winds, but I am sure this has been taken into consideration.

"Harlem Furniture......You'll like our style!"

by Imtrejo on Nov 29, 2007 8:46 AM CST up 0 recs

Agreed.

This isn't Stade Olympique at all. That was indeed a misconception, a bad idea from the beginning that ran into huge cost overruns, and now doesn't even have a baseball tenant to occupy the place 81 times a year.

If you look through the entire site, you can see that the concept in St. Petersburg has been well thought out, from its location to the way it fits in to the downtown area to its ideas on integrating it into a complete area-wide revitalization.

Montreal had none of that. I think this would be a great thing for the Rays franchise, a signature ballpark that would be an attraction in and of itself and might help the Rays attract both players to play there and fans to go there.

Hope they get it done. If you want a comparison to Stade Olympique, go no farther than the Trop.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 29, 2007 8:57 AM CST up 0 recs

Um ya...

... I'm not sure why any of us would think that a mistake could be made on a major stadium, especially those of us in Chicago who see the white elephant by the lake that is a UFO sitting atop the colonnades that cost nearly $700M, doesn't have enough bathrooms or parking, and could have been a facility that attracted the Super Bowl, the Final Four and the Olympics.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 29, 2007 9:28 AM CST up 0 recs

If you don't like

the look of the Rays potential stadium, that is your opinion. But to say that the "sail" will not perform or fail similar to Olympic Stadium is simply uninformed ranting.

"Harlem Furniture......You'll like our style!"

by Imtrejo on Nov 29, 2007 9:41 AM CST up 0 recs

I didn't say..

... that it won't perform. I said it has been done once before and it was a white elephant. Go look at some of the posters on various on some of the Tampa Bay blogs. Many think that its ridiculous to have a stadium that cannot be air conditioned.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 29, 2007 10:00 AM CST up 0 recs

Maybe, but...

... this doesn't strike me as anything like the stadium in Montreal, except for the tower that holds up the "sail" which bears a resemblance to the tower in Montreal which holds up the roof.

That's all. The rest of the project is completely different.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 29, 2007 11:39 AM CST up 0 recs

It's not a UFO.

It's a toilet bowl.

You're absolutely right about Soldier Field; there was a proposal to build a retractable dome over the original stadium (and upgrade it), which would have been nearly as ugly but would have also been a better allocation of the money, as you correctly point out, that would have attracted at the very least a Super Bowl and NCAA Final Four, in addition to being a possible year-round concert venue.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 29, 2007 9:48 AM CST up 0 recs

hmmm...

could have been a facility that attracted the Super Bowl, the Final Four and the Olympics.

How many Super Bowls are played on cold weather, non-dome stadiums?

How many Final Fours are played outside?

visit the mindful mission.

by big_lowitzki on Nov 29, 2007 9:55 AM CST up 0 recs

My point...

... was that it should have been a dome.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 29, 2007 10:02 AM CST up 0 recs

And it WOULD have been a dome.

There was a plan to build a retractable dome over the old Soldier Field. It would have been ugly, but quite a bit more functional than the existing stadium, which is useful primarily for the 10 Bears games a year that are played there.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM CST up 0 recs

Well...

.. personally I'm not of the belief that the current stadium is all that attractive. I know there are mixed feelings but most people seem to think that the mix of the old (colonnades ) and the new just look plain strange. Yeah, inside its a great looking stadium though the one time I went to a bears game I was surprised at how long I waited in line to use the mens room.

It just strikes me that for all that was spent on that stadium the end result wasn't great, especially for a city now bidding for the olympics. I realize that this is blasphemous to many Bears fans but it seems to make a lot more sense to spend the nearly $700m on a new site, perhaps the areas around McCormick Place that had been mentioned. Build a dome, use it for the Olympics and for the NCAA Final Four. But then again I'd have no problem is the new Bears stadium wasn't even retractable. I've never been a buyer of the "Bear Weather" argument.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 29, 2007 11:49 AM CST up 0 recs

I agree with you.

I was only pointing out that there WAS a proposal for a retrofitted retractable dome on the existing Soldier Field, which was nixed. Here are some articles about that proposal. Here's a page with a small picture of what that dome would have looked like; don't try clicking on it, though, because it links to a nonexistent City of Chicago webpage.

The total cost of that project, IIRC, was less than the $700M they eventually spent on the Toilet Bowl on the Lake.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 29, 2007 11:56 AM CST up 0 recs

Interesting

I now recall seeing that pic before.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 29, 2007 12:16 PM CST up 0 recs

One

Detroit a couple of years back.

A good day for me is a cubs win and a sox loss.

by diehardmark on Nov 30, 2007 5:36 AM CST up 0 recs

I'm curious.....

...are you an architect or an engineer? Normally your posts are rational and very well thought out. Your opinion seems to be solely based on how it looks. Can you tell us what technical aspects make this a potential disaster?

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Nov 29, 2007 11:11 AM CST up 0 recs

Nope...

... neither an architect nor an engineer. My first glance at this ballpark and I saw Olympic Stadium II. Incidentally Olympic Stadium was designed by architects and engineers.

Look, I'm sorry that this has irked people. I was trying to have a bit of fun with this new stadium that reminds me and others of the white elephant in Montreal. But ya, I'm still surprised that this organization is going down this road. To me a roof made out of a "sail like material" just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. I hope I'm wrong but when every other domed style stadium MLB has built has functioned well, more or less, and the one that didn't was a tower/cable system, I'm not sure why one goes this route.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 29, 2007 11:18 AM CST up 0 recs

Hhhhmmm

It is an interesting concept and the pics are pretty, but is it a good idea put a gazillion dollar ballpark even closer to the where huricanes can eat it up? I can see a dome/roof being practical in a very cold or very hot place, but I am not a fan of them at all.

Anxiously awaiting the arrival of Opening Day '08

by love the ivy on Nov 29, 2007 12:14 AM CST 0 recs

Will the

roof be able to pitch. I don't care if they build a 1 billion dollar stadium, no one cares about the Devil Rays, or now it is just the "Rays", the team is horrible, they have Kazmir to throw and that is it. However they did get rid of Young and got a young arm in Garza, who knows.
Maybe they should ask Lou if he could help with the blueprints, and I am sure he would not talk building supplies.

by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Nov 29, 2007 7:32 AM CST 0 recs

You clearly have never heard of

James Shields
Jacob McGee
Wade Davis
Jeff Niemann
David Price

by IllinoisCubs on Nov 29, 2007 11:40 AM CST up 0 recs

The building looks pretty cool

and we've come a long way with technical ability, materials, etc. since the old Stade Olympique. I think I would build it to hold more than 32k people, though. Otherwise, looks like a decent bit of architecture and engineering. I sure would like to see the plans and specs for it.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

by Jettero2112 on Nov 29, 2007 7:45 AM CST 0 recs

very interesting idea

as has been previously mentioned, technology has come a long way in the 30+ years since Olympic stadium was built. My only concern would be how well it will hold up in case of a hurricane.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike on Nov 29, 2007 8:35 AM CST 0 recs

It reminded me of

Olympic Stadium too at first glance. From an aesthetic standpoint I don't like it, just something about it that doesn't work for me.

I also think they should build it to hold more people, I don't like the trend of building smaller and smaller parks. Sure we don't need any 60,000 seat cookie cutter parks but more than low 30's would be nice. Two of the most successful teams attendance wise (Cubs, Red Sox) are constantly trying to add seats to their tiny parks so I think it's a bad sign for a team to think they're better of with fewer.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Nov 29, 2007 9:52 AM CST 0 recs

is that a spiderweb?

They're really considering building a $400M baseball stadium with a giant spiderweb over it?

I hate it. A lot.

And functionality aside, the monstrous beam beyond LF is very Olympic Stadiumesque. Ugh.

by davearm on Nov 29, 2007 10:38 AM CST 0 recs

That design is nothing

Like Montreal. Zero.

After looking at the pictures closely, Its seems to me that they want to have more of a quaint little ballpark that is very family and fan friendly.

"I guess you had some lean years, and didnt have to beat it hard" - Craig Sager

by Galvan316 on Nov 29, 2007 1:39 PM CST 0 recs

Honestly

you cannot see any similarities between

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=93727&rendTypeId=4

and

http://majorleaguedowntown.com/userfiles/Image/homepage_tbdr_image.gif

If you feel its a great design, thats fine. But to say that its nothing like Montreal... c'mon.

DmL

by dmlichte on Nov 29, 2007 1:57 PM CST up 0 recs

The tower looks similar.

The resemblances beyond that are superficial.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 29, 2007 2:50 PM CST up 0 recs

I got three words for you - H. O. K.

http://www.hoksport.com/projects/index.html

Given their track record with baseball stadium designs in the last 15 years or so (Camden, Jacobs, ATT, PNC, GABP, Petco, Busch), I think HOK has earned to right not to be second guessed. Or at least to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Nov 29, 2007 3:00 PM CST 0 recs

"Toilet Bowl On The Lake?"

That's too strong, Al, come on. I see nothing wrong with Soldier Field -- I've attended 2 games, and I felt close to the action, unlike most football stadiums in America.

I think the 'look' is unique -- unlike any other stadium -- anywhere. They couldn't tear the place down -- and putting a "roof" on the old place is absurd. Retrofitting the Old Soldier Field would have been a waste of money.

So, if it costs millions to retrofit -- and again, due to the 'historic' nature of Soldier Field -- what the hell do you do? The place was no longer up to NFL standards, let alone the modern age. Should the Bears have abandonded the facility and tried to build elsewhere? Certainly, there were enough different sites. Then, if the Bears did that -- then, you have an unusable, 'museum' on the lakefront that would be used by nobody.

Los Angeles is trying to figure out what to to with the Coliseum. There's a thought to gut and try to attempt what the city of Chicago did with Soldier Field -- build a modern stadium within the confines. With USC now threatening to move to the equally aging Rose Bowl (but also offering to help pay to rebuild the C. for the control of the facility) the Chicago 'model' might work out here.

You want a toilet? Visit Qualcomm. Even the old Soldier Field at 80+ years was a better facility than one that's only 43 years old -- this market has a dirty, crumbling craphole of a stadium where they can't even find parts to fix the video boards any more, let alone keep the regular electronics working.

But it's a good evacuation center.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Nov 29, 2007 5:28 PM CST 0 recs

Believe it or not...

... I agree with you. I have been to a game at the new Soldier Field, and the sightlines are excellent, the design helps block the wind (on a 55-degree day, it didn't even feel a bit cold), and it helps concentrate the noise inside, making for a large home-field advantage.

But from the outside it looks like someone dumped a toilet bowl into the colonnades. Oddly, if you look at it from the EAST side -- the lakefront side -- it's much more attractive. Unfortunately, most people's view of it is driving by on Lake Shore Drive, from the west.

They could have done better, and SHOULD have made it a retractable dome.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Nov 29, 2007 9:11 PM CST up 0 recs

I have traveled to St Pete..

at least once a month for work for about the last 10 years. I just got back from there tonight in fact..

The local talk about the stadium isnt about design, its about parking. St Pete is a very small and tightly packed downtown area. The design plans dont account for the need for resonable parking. (shuttle buses from parking garages etc) As we know here in Chicago, that can create alot of problems and is hardly a viable plan new ballpark, but they are stuck in St Pete (as opposed to Tampa or Clearwater) due to the lease with the city.

Let me get back to you, will ya, Charlie? I got a guy on the other line asking about some white walls.

by JB 23 on Nov 29, 2007 10:03 PM CST 0 recs